Internet & Related Stuff

For Internet and Related Stuff.

The story it tells is true enough.. A horrendous number of New Zealanders are actively pirating media - Movies and such in particular - and see nothing wrong with it.

The attitude is incredibly self serving, and smacks of ignorance. Quotes like "I never think about who I might be hurting when I'm downloading copyrighted material," and "I don't download New Zealand music or movies, because I know our industries struggle," ... "But internationally things are on such a big scale and it's so easy not to think about it." are blatantly selfish.

"If movie directors and actors got up and said 'I can't do this anymore, piracy now means it's too hard for me to make a living in this industry,' I'd stop downloading pirated material. If they gave up working because of it, I might start to feel accountable. But it's just not happening."

In other words, until it actually has a tangible effect on the individual, the consequences are irrelevant. Sounds a bit like early attitude about pollution and the environment. "Until it actually affects me, it's not my problem".


"Until then, while I'm not proud of it, I won't start paying for something I can so easily get for free."

The article probably explains the mentality very well. A shame I don't subscribe to it.

I can't claim to be perfect in this score - and I doubt there's many who can. However I do subscribe to the notion that the sheer number of people who're building media collections by copying, and not purchasing, digital works, are hitting the media hard.

There's a combination of factors, of course. If legitimate, commercial options were priced low enough, demand would fall. My own impressions are that iTunes has infact had an impact here; you can now find the majority of the music you want online, buy it legitimately and actually support the artist concerned.

Now, is $25 per DVD for your average movie fair priced? $30? What about boxed sets of TV series for $50-150?

Chicken and egg, right? The media companies cite their losses due to piracy and keep upping their prices. Thus more people pirate, less buy, chicken and egg.

The same logic here applies to (closed) software. The more expensive the title, the more likely it is to be pirated and used contrary to it's license terms.

I personally make an effort to support the artists by legitimately acquiring their work; this is across, film, TV and audio. Yes, I still buy (and listen to) CDs! I see this as an important thing - supporting the artists helps ensure they'll keep making my favourite shows, films and music!

I'd be interested to hear what people actually use as a rationale for any status which in the end, causes them to _not_ be supporting the artist aka, acquiring content for free when it does have a titular cost.

I hope you get it too - an excellent and eye-opening Groklaw piece.

It's yet another example of why Patents can be bad news, too. Funny how it all ties together isn't it?

Don't be sucked in by Microsoft offering to do big things in the Open Source world; theyre doing it to ensure that Windows itself isn't marginalized in the process. On the contrary, they want Open Source apps to be running on Windows - and Windows only?? The latter is of course, the question.

At a business level it's probably good thinking, as they're losing, if anything, against their competitors (both Linux and MacOS) - so it's not a bad stake-in-the-ground.

All I can say, is, be wary. I still appreciate _complete_ openness. Not this hybrid that continues to cause our reliance on a single-vendor closed platform.

I spotted this last week, but this is with a more local focus.

This is a key risk for organisations that choose to:

a) Run a closed source package which leaves them at the whim of the vendor; and

b) Run a Windows based system without allowing for updating to a 'current' generation OS.

Windows 2000 is closing on 10 years old (obviously) and most people have moved to Windows XP or Vista (on the desktop) or Windows Server 2003/2008 (servers). Those who havn't are either poorly organised or have a particular reason for staying with Win2k; perhaps compatibility with hardware or a particular software package.

However these people are now left without an option for the security of their system, thanks to the Vendor deciding 'no' (this despite the fact that I read somewhere, MS had previously agreed to keep patching the OS until next year!)

It brings me back to one of the reasons Im becoming a big fan of the open alternatives; The decisions of a profit-focussed monopoly vendor should not be allowed to have such potentially far-reaching effects.

Me thinks those with remaining W2K machines will be working to replace them fast - or isolate them behind a suitably configured firewall... I hope however this is something of a learning experience!

... I think i'm really glad of it.

If you havn't read Animal Farm, you really should.

Takes Spot the Fed to a whole new level.

Discussion is heating up over the DIA's Internet Content Filter.
It's hit Geekzone, and ThomasBeagle has quite a bit on it. WellyLUG and NZOSS have both noted the subject. is worth a look.

I'm of two minds on this; it's an opt-in service (at ISP level) and I think I'd generally choose to use an ISP who didn't engage in this service where that choice existed.

On the other hand I have a reasonable amount of faith in the DIA (biased, perhaps, by my own personal slant on the state sector) - a service like this is probably not a bad thing in some circumstances.

I think a serious amount of oversight - in an open fashion - is the only way it'd fly. The Great Firewall of China is ominous in itself.... we don't want to go that way. Look at the Australian mess?

I like it:

Syndicate content